guild icon
Mayflower District Court
#rochonto3-et-al-v-singhski-et-al
This is the start of #rochonto3-et-al-v-singhski-et-al channel.
krabz
krabz 2025-02-02 05:38 p.m.
Clark County District Court online systems
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 02:55 p.m.
krabzkrabz used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-02 05:39 p.m.
Case Modified
@krabz has added @impactiii to the case channel.
krabzkrabz used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-02 05:39 p.m.
Case Modified
@krabz has added @rochonto3 to the case channel.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 05:40 p.m.
@Awesome
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 05:40 p.m.
Emergency Motion needs approval within 24 hrs; Plaintiffs already being rounded up and arrested
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 06:11 p.m.
Also on meet-and-confer… that would not be practical at this stage(edited)
impactiiiimpactiii
Also on meet-and-confer… that would not be practical at this stage(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-02 06:18 p.m.
MINUTE ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court, finding that swift, decisive action is quintessential to preserve the status quo, see, e.g., Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974), and upon weighing all four factors -- namely, the (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm in the absence of relief, (3) balance of equities, and (4) public interest -- set forth in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), and upon concluding, at least at this stage, that all such factors weigh squarely in favor of injunctive relief, it is ORDERED that: (1) Defendants and their employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents be, and they hereby are, forthwith RESTRAINED from enforcing, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to Memo. No. 2025-1A14-0201-01, pending further order of the Court, so that a hearing, at a date and time convenient to the Court and the parties, may be held; (2) Defendants shall provide written notice of this Order to all of their employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents by, at the latest, Monday, February 3, 2025 at 6:15 p.m., 1 year ago; and (3) the Court reserves its decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

/s/ AwesomePIays
Mayflower District Judge
(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-02 06:18 p.m.
cc: @impactiii / @Department of Justice
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-02 06:19 p.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @singhski to the case channel.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-02 06:21 p.m.
Thank you. We will be filing a motion to Vacate the TRO tomorrow on the basis that my directives cannot be enjoined by the judiciary.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 06:22 p.m.
The fourth branch of government coming in hard and fast
SinghskiSinghski
Thank you. We will be filing a motion to Vacate the TRO tomorrow on the basis that my directives cannot be enjoined by the judiciary.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-02 06:23 p.m.
Disclaimer: the Constitution demands this.
SinghskiSinghski
Thank you. We will be filing a motion to Vacate the TRO tomorrow on the basis that my directives cannot be enjoined by the judiciary.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-02 06:29 p.m.
I mean, I'll hear you out, but I don't see much merit in an argument that AG Directives aren't subject to judicial review, no matter how supposedly draconian or unjust; there's three co-equal branches.
AwesomeAwesome
I mean, I'll hear you out, but I don't see much merit in an argument that AG Directives aren't subject to judicial review, no matter how supposedly draconian or unjust; there's thr...
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 02:50 a.m.
You'll be surprised that you've actually violated the spirit of separation of powers as defined by our cases.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 08:41 a.m.
Cc: @impactiii , @Awesome
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 08:48 a.m.
I don’t think I need to respond to that, quite honestly. Much of the case law actually supports the Plaintiffs’ position
impactiiiimpactiii
I don’t think I need to respond to that, quite honestly. Much of the case law actually supports the Plaintiffs’ position
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 09:33 a.m.
But if that will not suffice: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:15 a.m.
"The Legislature may, by Law, strike any directive or order if they feel it is unjust or inconsistent with this Constitution." Mayfl. Const. Art IV, §3.

The word “may” is an expression of possibility, a permissive choice to act or not, and ordinarily implies some degree of discretion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/may

I would find it hard to believe that the Framers intended to limit the check on the formidable executive power of Attorney General memorandums to solely the hands of one branch—the Legislature. The key concept is behind our constitutional order is that each branch checks the other... not one to the other.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:17 a.m.
If they allow one to have a check, then just in that nature of how our government must function (separation of powers), then all must have a say
impactiiiimpactiii
"The Legislature may, by Law, strike any directive or order if they feel it is unjust or inconsistent with this Constitution." Mayfl. Const. Art IV, §3. The word “may” is an ...
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:41 a.m.
Does the use of "may" not prove the point that the Founders intended that only the Legislature be able to strike down the Attorney General's directive? By making this authority discretionary, the Constitution ensures that no individual can compel the Legislature to act through a writ of mandamus—nor can the courts issue one. Does this not entirely cast away the courts from touching the AG's directives?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:42 a.m.
They may be able to, sure
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:42 a.m.
If anything, it’s just another tool in their toolbox
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:43 a.m.
Not taking the hammer away from the judiciary
impactiiiimpactiii
Not taking the hammer away from the judiciary
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:48 a.m.
By conferring this power solely upon the Legislature, the Constitution implicitly denies it to the judiciary.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:49 a.m.
The courts cannot assume an authority that the Framers chose not to place in their hands, I don't believe they have ever operated that way.
SinghskiSinghski
By conferring this power solely upon the Legislature, the Constitution implicitly denies it to the judiciary.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:50 a.m.
That's expressio unius
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:50 a.m.
I believe I touched on this in my motion, but, usually expressio unius isn't applied to reading the constitution when it limits authority, but wholly appropriate to use when it grants authority
impactiiiimpactiii
If they allow one to have a check, then just in that nature of how our government must function (separation of powers), then all must have a say
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:51 a.m.
I don't understand why it wasn't the intention of the Founders to only have one branch check the other in this context?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:52 a.m.
Because we have three co-equal branches
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:52 a.m.
sic AwesomePlayz
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:52 a.m.
There are numerous instances where only one branch checks the other
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:52 a.m.
One can easily counter that entire argument with the simple reading that the Constitution vests all judicial power in the courts
impactiiiimpactiii
But if that will not suffice: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:53 a.m.
And then back to this
impactiiiimpactiii
But if that will not suffice: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:54 a.m.
Chief Justice Marshall’s statement refers to the judiciary’s role in interpreting and applying the law in cases properly before it, not in usurping powers expressly assigned to another branch.
SinghskiSinghski
There are numerous instances where only one branch checks the other
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:54 a.m.
Primarily. Not entirely
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:54 a.m.
The judiciary could still review a challenge to a veto override to make sure that the required majority voted in favor, for example
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:55 a.m.
On a challenge to the enactment of a law that was first vetoed
impactiiiimpactiii
The judiciary could still review a challenge to a veto override to make sure that the required majority voted in favor, for example
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:57 a.m.
What about judicial involvement in impeachments?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:58 a.m.
Well if we’re talking about federal impeachments, the operative word is “shall” and then “have the sole power.” The word here is “may.” You’re welcome
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:00 a.m.
The judiciary can only get involved in impeachments if the constitutional process wasn’t followed
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:00 a.m.
I read a case about this. Forget what the name is
impactiiiimpactiii
The judiciary can only get involved in impeachments if the constitutional process wasn’t followed
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:00 a.m.
Like if the House never exhibited Articles and the Senate did a trial
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:01 a.m.
So there’s still a check
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:22 a.m.
@impactiii Our cases support the general notion that discretionary functions of the executive are nonjusticiable, and to place a check on the executive, the legislature was utilized.(edited)
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:25 a.m.
So the Founders were actually wise in not implicating the judiciary, because had they done that, the political question doctrine would effectively be a weak acid.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:32 a.m.
Discretionary function, i.e issuing of directives and orders by the AG
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:34 a.m.
“But where the executive's discretionary functions are at issue, interference from the judicial branch is inappropriate. ” McMellon v. U.S., 387 F.3d 329, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2004). From what I've read the discretionary function exception usually applies to areas involving policy judgment, such as state security—which this directive was aimed at—foreign relations or similar matters.
SinghskiSinghski
“But where the executive's discretionary functions are at issue, interference from the judicial branch is inappropriate. ” McMellon v. U.S., 387 F.3d 329, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2004)....
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:41 a.m.
But you're applying a tort immunity case under the FTCA's liability standards to a state constitutional challenge
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:41 a.m.
Not to mention that's out-of-circuit precedent, by all technicality
impactiiiimpactiii
But you're applying a tort immunity case under the FTCA's liability standards to a state constitutional challenge
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:42 a.m.
I still believe the Founders considered discretionary decisions taken by the executive nonjusticiable, otherwise they wouldn't have utilized the legislature as the check(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:42 a.m.
Do you believe the judiciary has any power at all to review AG directives?
impactiiiimpactiii
Do you believe the judiciary has any power at all to review AG directives?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:47 a.m.
What I believe is irrelevant; what matters is what the Constitution actually says. And the Constitution clearly states that the judiciary has no authority to review Attorney General directives, based on the principle of expressio unius. As you noted earlier, "The judiciary can only intervene in impeachments if the constitutional process hasn't been followed." There are many instances where judicial involvement occurs when the Constitution is violated in context of the political branch. However, in this case, it is the legislature, not the judiciary, that must act if there is a constitutional violation.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:49 a.m.
There has to be a reason why the Founders explicitly gave this authority to the legislature, but not the judiciary, unless you think our Founders wrote the Constitution without careful thought or purpose?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:50 a.m.
And that reason is because the executive's discretionary functions must be nonjusticiable
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:50 a.m.
I don't feel compelled to answer that. That's just ridiculous
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:50 a.m.
Lol
SinghskiSinghski
There has to be a reason why the Founders explicitly gave this authority to the legislature, but not the judiciary, unless you think our Founders wrote the Constitution without car...
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:50 a.m.
Well I mean, what's the reasoning behind this?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:50 a.m.
easiest way to answer that is "they made a mistake"
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:54 a.m.
Clearly, Article X authority ends once the AG signs a memorandum
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:54 a.m.
I think we have it now
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:54 a.m.
Thank you for enlightening all of us
impactiiiimpactiii
Clearly, Article X authority ends once the AG signs a memorandum
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:57 a.m.
It is without conclusion, as it was never in existence.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:57 a.m.
:🙂:
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 05:42 p.m.
impactiiiimpactiii
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT @Awesome @singhski [Exhibit 1](<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GEVreUmJFnoXslR0y9UiKMjMeJoDRdA3/view?usp...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 07:58 p.m.
AFFIDAVIT OF SADOIMPACTO
AwesomeAwesome
MINUTE ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court, finding that swift, decisive action is qu...(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-04 12:23 a.m.
@singhski Can you certify whether you have provided “written notice of this Order to all of [your] employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents”?
AwesomeAwesome
@singhski Can you certify whether you have provided “written notice of this Order to all of [your] employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents”?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-04 12:42 a.m.
This message constitutes notice of the Plaintiffs’ intent to move for sanctions—if the Court does not automatically impose them—should the Attorney General have failed to comply with his duty to act under the Court’s order.
AwesomeAwesome
@singhski Can you certify whether you have provided “written notice of this Order to all of [your] employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents”?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-04 04:32 a.m.
No.
SinghskiSinghski
No.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:13 a.m.
.
AwesomeAwesome
.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-04 05:14 a.m.
ok I have now
SinghskiSinghski
ok I have now
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:14 a.m.
Alright.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:17 a.m.
Do the Plaintiffs or the State have any objections to @Brenda filing an amicus curiae brief?

cc: @singhski @impactiii
(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
Do the Plaintiffs or the State have any objections to @Brenda filing an amicus curiae brief? cc: @singhski @impactiii(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-04 11:28 a.m.
No
AwesomeAwesome
Do the Plaintiffs or the State have any objections to @Brenda filing an amicus curiae brief? cc: @singhski @impactiii(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-04 04:46 p.m.
@singhski ?
impactiiiimpactiii
This message constitutes notice of the Plaintiffs’ intent to move for sanctions—if the Court does not automatically impose them—should the Attorney General have failed to comply wi...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-04 04:55 p.m.
Renewed notice
impactiiiimpactiii
Renewed notice
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:13 p.m.
As far as I’m aware, he complied with the Court’s Order.
AwesomeAwesome
As far as I’m aware, he complied with the Court’s Order.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-04 05:13 p.m.
10 hours later
impactiiiimpactiii
10 hours later
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:24 p.m.
I’m not going to sua sponte enter sanctions based off of a one-off minor delay.(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
I’m not going to sua sponte enter sanctions based off of a one-off minor delay.(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-04 05:26 p.m.
He waited 10 hours to notify his agents of the enjoinment of the order. That's not a minor delay. And he knows better. Can we get him to sign on affidavit on how many people were arrested before he notified his officers and finally complied with this Court's order?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-04 05:26 p.m.
I can put it into a motion
impactiiiimpactiii
He waited 10 hours to notify his agents of the enjoinment of the order. That's not a minor delay. And he knows better. Can we get him to sign on affidavit on how many people were a...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:35 p.m.
Apologies, I meant I’m not going to sua sponte do so; if you wish to move for sanctions, you’re free to.(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
Apologies, I meant I’m not going to sua sponte do so; if you wish to move for sanctions, you’re free to.(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-04 06:50 p.m.
Will be filed. TY
impactiiiimpactiii
This message constitutes notice of the Plaintiffs’ intent to move for sanctions—if the Court does not automatically impose them—should the Attorney General have failed to comply wi...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-04 11:24 p.m.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT AND TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS
CC: @Awesome @singhski
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-02-05 08:12 a.m.
where is the trello card for this
shah_khaled ᴘᴄshah_khaled ᴘᴄ
where is the trello card for this
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-05 08:18 a.m.
Website
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-05 05:12 p.m.
@Awesome will reply to everything earliest tomorrow I haven’t got any time
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-05 11:11 p.m.
MINUTE ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY BRENDAPOPPLEWELL’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

Courts have wide latitude to allow — or, conversely, to not allow — a non-party’s participation as amicus curiae. See, e.g., United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 165 (6th Cir. 1991). Plaintiffs have consented to Ms BrendaPopplewell’s Motion, and the State has failed to timely object. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: (1) Ms BrendaPopplewell’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief be, and it hereby is, GRANTED; and (2) Ms BrendaPopplewell is permitted to file, on or before Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 2:00 a.m., 1 year ago, an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs.

/s/ AwesomePIays
Mayflower District Judge

cc: @Brenda / @impactiii @rochonto3 / @singhski
(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
MINUTE ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY BRENDAPOPPLEWELL’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF Courts have wide latitude to allow — or, conversely, to not allow — a non-party’s part...(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-05 11:27 p.m.
What about the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion for Sanctions?
impactiiiimpactiii
What about the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion for Sanctions?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-05 11:34 p.m.
I’m waiting on the State’s response.
SinghskiSinghski
Cc: @impactiii , @Awesome
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-06 02:20 p.m.
@Awesome did you rule on this?
SinghskiSinghski
@Awesome did you rule on this?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-06 02:52 p.m.
I think he’s waiting to do everything all at once
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-06 02:52 p.m.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-06 02:52 p.m.
@awesomeplayz
SinghskiSinghski
@Awesome did you rule on this?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-06 07:52 p.m.
I’m writing it.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-06 07:59 p.m.
Well, I started writing it yesterday, as I was waiting on Brenda’s amicus brief.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-07 03:49 a.m.
@singhski When can the Court anticipate the State’s response?
impactiiiimpactiii
What about the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion for Sanctions?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-07 03:50 a.m.
To these.*
AwesomeAwesome
To these.*
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-07 01:51 p.m.
Set a deadline
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-07 01:51 p.m.
EOD Sunday would be fair
AwesomeAwesome
To these.*
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 12:52 a.m.
I'm done
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 12:52 a.m.
Waiting
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 12:52 a.m.
Ngl
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 12:53 a.m.
@singhski I'm done
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 12:53 a.m.
Buddy
AwesomeAwesome
@singhski When can the Court anticipate the State’s response?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-08 04:37 a.m.
Today your honor.
SinghskiSinghski
Today your honor.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-08 05:36 a.m.
Alright. Let me know once it's in.
AwesomeAwesome
Alright. Let me know once it's in.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:56 p.m.
Can he have another 48 hours to respond I feel like we didn't give him enough time icl abt ts
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:56 p.m.
There's not much he can even say @Awesome
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:56 p.m.
Lol
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:57 p.m.
@singhski Brooooooooooo The Constitution Commands it
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:57 p.m.
It Commands it
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:58 p.m.
We have 3 briefs and then 1 airball
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:59 p.m.
3 briefs from 2 different people
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.
It commands it
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.
The U.S. Supreme Court decides if laws made in the United States violate the Constitution or not. It’s called judicial review and it’s a power that was granted to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court itself – thanks to a landmark case in 1803, Marbury v. Madison.

Untold is a free collection of short, compelling, history videos and animations ...
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.
:😡: :😡:
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.
ts pmo icl
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.
:💔:
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.
yes give me another 48
SinghskiSinghski
yes give me another 48
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-08 03:08 p.m.
Alright, you can have another 48, but it needs to be in by then; I won’t entertain any further delays.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:10 p.m.
Lmfao
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:10 p.m.
I was joking about the extra 48
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:10 p.m.
:😭:
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-08 03:10 p.m.
.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:10 p.m.
He can have until Sunday at the latest
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
I'm not starting my week writing a reply brief
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
Weekend is valuable time
AwesomeAwesome
Alright, you can have another 48, but it needs to be in by then; I won’t entertain any further delays.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
You can have another ~24 hours*.(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
Sunday by 5:00 PM EST
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
2/8/2025 5:00 PM EST
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
2/9*
AwesomeAwesome
You can have another ~24 hours*.(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-08 03:13 p.m.
Sunday, February 9, 2025 at 5:00 p.m., 1 year ago.
impactiiiimpactiii
:😭:
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-08 03:14 p.m.
In the future, maybe make it a smidge clearer that it’s a joke.You literally @‘d me.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:20 p.m.
Literally
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-08 04:14 p.m.
@Awesome no but I wasn’t joking because my IRL workload has doubled this past week
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-09 11:09 a.m.
@Awesome Please extend this to Monday
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-09 11:59 a.m.
No
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-09 12:00 p.m.
Buddy
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-09 12:13 p.m.
You've had five (5) days, notwithstanding Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(9), which states, in relevant part, that "[a] party may only respond once to a pretrial motion if they wish to respond at all[,] [which] must be filed within forty-eight (48) hours of the motion being made."
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-09 12:14 p.m.
I, of course, get people have IRL stuff, but, like, why wasn't this raised earlier..?
AwesomeAwesome
I, of course, get people have IRL stuff, but, like, why wasn't this raised earlier..?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-09 02:09 p.m.
Like, if you had responded to one of the pending motions, I’d be more than willing to give you the requested extension.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-09 02:15 p.m.
@Awesome because I'm not home all day today
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-09 02:15 p.m.
I don't know if I'll be able to finish when I'm back, but will definetly be done and ready to send on Monday(edited)
SinghskiSinghski
@Awesome because I'm not home all day today
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-09 02:17 p.m.
As a one-time courtesy, I’ll grant you the extension, but another won’t be granted.
AwesomeAwesome
As a one-time courtesy, I’ll grant you the extension, but another won’t be granted.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-09 02:17 p.m.
Thank you.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:30 p.m.
@Awesome Today by 5:00 PM EST
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:32 p.m.
Unless the AG is literally working in the African cobalt mines with no electricity I see no reason why he can’t spare 30 minutes to write 3-5 pages using ChatGPT or some other kind of AI tool across the last 6 days
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:33 p.m.
I was fine with 2 days but we all have a “IRL workload” to tend to not to mention I was handling my irl workload while dealing with food poisoning this weekend
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:33 p.m.
And I’m still locked in on this Lego court, with due respect
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:34 p.m.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:40 p.m.
@Awesome SIR!!
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-10 01:40 p.m.
but everything will be in by 5
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:41 p.m.
SIR!!!! @Awesome
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-10 01:41 p.m.
Stop snitching or you'll find out real hood...
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-10 01:42 p.m.
Stop playing.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:42 p.m.
I won’t tolerate this. I know many black folk, including @krm and @Brenda .
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:43 p.m.
You better stand back and stand by
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-10 03:01 p.m.
Can we, like, not use racial slurs in a case chat?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-10 03:02 p.m.
Apologies, I only just woke up.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 06:18 p.m.
@Awesome
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 06:18 p.m.
It’s past 5
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 06:18 p.m.
1 hour past 5
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 07:16 p.m.
@Awesome It is past 5 in MST now as well so unless Mr. Singhski lives in California he is late!!!!!! Again!!!!!!!
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 08:43 p.m.
@Awesome
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-10 11:01 p.m.
@Awesome your HONOR.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:25 a.m.
@Awesome YOUR HONOR!!!!!!!!!!
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-11 01:26 a.m.
Can you, like, not ping me five times?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-11 01:27 a.m.
I just got home.
AwesomeAwesome
Can you, like, not ping me five times?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:27 a.m.
Apologies I was geeked. When can we expect a ruling since there’s no opposition.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-11 01:35 a.m.
@singhski What’s going on?
AwesomeAwesome
@singhski What’s going on?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:35 a.m.
This, sir.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-11 01:36 a.m.
I’m asking him why he hasn’t responded.
AwesomeAwesome
I’m asking him why he hasn’t responded.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:36 a.m.
Can I move for a second contempt on use of the n-word?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:36 a.m.
I had numerous people DM me that they were absolutely disgusted.
AwesomeAwesome
I’m asking him why he hasn’t responded.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:41 a.m.
In his own words: “[he] don’t care n*gga”
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:41 a.m.
This can’t be more clear, your Honor
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:41 a.m.
We gave him what… 5 days to respond? Going on 6?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:42 a.m.
When has anyone ever been granted that much time to file a response to one brief?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:45 a.m.
@Awesome Also, your Honor, the Plaintiffs are stating their intent to request an entry of default
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:46 a.m.
No answer has been made on the complaint
impactiiiimpactiii
@Awesome Also, your Honor, the Plaintiffs are stating their intent to request an entry of default
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-11 02:25 a.m.
I’ll need that in writing, pursuant to Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 37(f) (“A default judgment may be entered against the State of Mayflower (including any political subdivisions thereof), its officers, or its agencies only if the claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court.”).
impactiiiimpactiii
I had numerous people DM me that they were absolutely disgusted.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-11 02:27 a.m.
I’ll incorporate it into your motion for sanctions.
impactiiiimpactiii
This can’t be more clear, your Honor
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-11 02:29 a.m.
I’m nonetheless waiting for the State to respond.(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-11 02:33 p.m.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZdsRR_z4Qj5a9oGUp2bF5scLOJwxK1ix/view?usp=sharing

cc: @rochonto3 @impactiii / @singhski @Department of Justice
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-11 02:34 p.m.
Apologies for the delay.
AwesomeAwesome
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZdsRR_z4Qj5a9oGUp2bF5scLOJwxK1ix/view?usp=sharing cc: @rochonto3 @impactiii / @singhski <@&127957678172012967...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-11 02:45 p.m.
For the reasons set forth in the Court's Opinion and Order attached hereto, the Defendants' Motion to Vacate the Court's TRO is DENIED.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-11 03:33 p.m.
Awaiting ruling
Deleted User
Deleted User 2025-02-11 07:19 p.m.
AwesomeAwesome
@singhski What’s going on?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 03:57 a.m.
@singhski
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:00 a.m.
You can enter default
SinghskiSinghski
You can enter default
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:00 a.m.
Well, I have a pending motion for sanctions (contempt), and I kinda need a response on that front.(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:02 a.m.
Even if it’s submitted via text over Discord.(edited)
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:03 a.m.
I mean we're not enforcing the memorandum anymore
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:03 a.m.
and the number of arrests made during my noncompliance was 0(edited)
SinghskiSinghski
and the number of arrests made during my noncompliance was 0(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:04 a.m.
I did check this, and you appear to be correct, but they also moved for sanctions for disregard for decorum (the use of a racial slur).
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:04 a.m.
As much as I don’t want to hold counsel in contempt, you’re making it tricky for me.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:05 a.m.
Yeah, that's on me.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:05 a.m.
It was uncalled for.
SinghskiSinghski
It was uncalled for.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:10 a.m.
Ok, I’ll give you a choice between (1) a nominal fine of $1,500 or (2) an apology, delivered to the Court and the Plaintiffs.
AwesomeAwesome
Ok, I’ll give you a choice between (1) a nominal fine of $1,500 or (2) an apology, delivered to the Court and the Plaintiffs.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:11 a.m.
I'll apologise
SinghskiSinghski
I'll apologise
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:14 a.m.
When can the Court and the Plaintiffs expect that apology to be made?(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
When can the Court and the Plaintiffs expect that apology to be made?(edited)
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:15 a.m.
Will you accept it as a message?
SinghskiSinghski
Will you accept it as a message?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:16 a.m.
Yes, as long as it’s not <20 words.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:20 a.m.
Cc: @impactiii , @Awesome

I am here and now tendering the most sincere apologies for the inappropriate and obscene words spoken on that day, 10th February 2025, in court proceedings. I realize that what I did was a very grievous offense by using a racial slur. I understand thoroughly that such language is not merely disrespectful but, in any context, especially a place of justice, harmful and unacceptable.

My words do not truly exemplify my character or the respect I hold for this Court, the legal system, the plaintiffs, and all others involved in these proceedings, but they were uttered in a moment of complete inappropriateness and lapse of judgment. I fully accept the whole responsibility for my actions. I realize that my behavior undermines the dignity of the Court and the integrity of its processes and hurts the plaintiffs and more persons involved. I'm genuinely sorry for that.

I know quite well that words of the sort can have a serious impact on individual as well as communities; I keep appreciating the necessity of a respectful and just environment. I commit myself to ensuring that such behavior is never repeated and amending it where possible.
(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:35 a.m.
MINUTE ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO HOLD DEFENDANT SINGHSKI IN CIVIL CONTEMPT

UPON CONSIDERATION of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions and to Hold Defendant Singhski in Civil Contempt, IT IS HEREBY:

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion be, and it hereby is, GRANTED IN PART, insofar as (i) sanctioning Defendant Singhski for his raucous conduct and (ii) requiring Defendants to submit an affidavit representing and detailing, to the best of Defendants’ knowledge, the number of arrests made during the period between the continued enforcement of the Memorandum after the Court’s TRO was issued and the notice of the Court’s TRO provided to Defendants’ employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents, and DENIED IN PART, insofar as holding Defendant Singhski in civil contempt and precluding him from contesting the continued enforcement of the Memorandum; and IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED that Defendants are to submit an affidavit, no later than Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 5:00 a.m., 1 year ago, representing and detailing, to the best of Defendants’ knowledge, the number of arrests made during the period between the continued enforcement of the Memorandum after the Court’s TRO was issued and the notice of the Court’s TRO provided to Defendants’ employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents.

/s/ AwesomePIays
Mayflower District Judge

cc: @impactiii @rochonto3 / @singhski
(edited)
SinghskiSinghski
You can enter default
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 08:50 a.m.
Consent judgement?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:45 a.m.
@Awesome Will you grant summary judgment
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:46 a.m.
The Defendant does not contest
impactiiiimpactiii
The Defendant does not contest
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 09:46 a.m.
We don't contest
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:46 a.m.
Among our “other relief” we want a permanent injunction on similar “arrest memorandums”
impactiiiimpactiii
Among our “other relief” we want a permanent injunction on similar “arrest memorandums”
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:46 a.m.
And a declaratory judgment on that as well
impactiiiimpactiii
Among our “other relief” we want a permanent injunction on similar “arrest memorandums”
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 09:51 a.m.
From my office or from me?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 09:52 a.m.
i.e from the Attorney General or Singhski?
SinghskiSinghski
From my office or from me?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:53 a.m.
No from Judge AwesomePIays
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 09:54 a.m.
not what I mean
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 09:54 a.m.
arrest memorandums from my post or me?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:55 a.m.
Like the entire DOJ
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:55 a.m.
Naturally
impactiiiimpactiii
Among our “other relief” we want a permanent injunction on similar “arrest memorandums”
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:24 a.m.
I’m wary, to put it mildly, of issuing an injunction as broad as the one you appear to be requesting.
AwesomeAwesome
I’m wary, to put it mildly, of issuing an injunction as broad as the one you appear to be requesting.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:27 a.m.
When would an arrest memorandum ever be constitutional
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:28 a.m.
Also that whole statute that punishes non-compliance with memorandums by jail time(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:28 a.m.
I’m not aware of any federal equivalent or other-state equivalent
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:28 a.m.
And the one that allows the AG to imprison people based on the “list”(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:29 a.m.
I’d be inclined to agree, but the Constitution explicitly gives the Legislature the right to fix “[t]he punishment for not following the directives or orders [of the Attorney General].”
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:30 a.m.
And if you were to argue supremacy, that’s a whole other ball-game.
AwesomeAwesome
And if you were to argue supremacy, that’s a whole other ball-game.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:30 a.m.
I would but
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:30 a.m.
Maybe another time
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:31 a.m.
Obviously violative of the guarantee clause that requires separation of powers in all states
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:32 a.m.
And of course this court is allowed to decide a question on its own constitution by applying the federal constitution
impactiiiimpactiii
And of course this court is allowed to decide a question on its own constitution by applying the federal constitution
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:33 a.m.
Well, I’m not inclined to resolve or reach a broader state & fed’l constitutional question when the matter can be resolved on narrower grounds.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:34 a.m.
Real
impactiiiimpactiii
When would an arrest memorandum ever be constitutional
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:37 a.m.
Anyways, back to this. One by fiat likely never could be, but if the Attorney General obtained warrants for, let’s say, several members of a criminal syndicate based on their criminality, rather than their mere membership therein, and ordered his subordinates to “apprehend” them, I wouldn’t want my order to be construed as restraining or prohibiting that… for obvious reasons.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:38 a.m.
Courts are ordinarily reluctant to grant sweeping injunctions, especially against the government, as there is a not so remote possibility that legitimate and lawful conduct is ensnared by its breadth and reach.
AwesomeAwesome
Courts are ordinarily reluctant to grant sweeping injunctions, especially against the government, as there is a not so remote possibility that legitimate and lawful conduct is ensn...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:52 a.m.
You aren’t Clarence Thomas buddy
impactiiiimpactiii
Obviously violative of the guarantee clause that requires separation of powers in all states
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:56 a.m.
Also, this is just profoundly incorrect, and yet still somehow a common misconception. See Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 690 n.4 (1980) (citing Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71, 84 (1902)) (“The Court has held that the doctrine of separation of powers embodied in the Federal Constitution is not mandatory on the States.”).
AwesomeAwesome
Also, this is just profoundly incorrect, and yet still somehow a common misconception. See Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 690 n.4 (1980) (citing Dreyer v. Illinois, 1...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:58 a.m.
Burger court?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:58 a.m.
Opinion rejected
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:01 a.m.
I’ve seen some of the worst shit ever come out of that Court
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:01 a.m.
Like genuinely shitting out opinions(edited)
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 11:03 a.m.
@impactiii so I suppose you say the same thing with Warren too?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:05 a.m.
SinghskiSinghski
@impactiii so I suppose you say the same thing with Warren too?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:06 a.m.
Well
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:06 a.m.
I’m not technically allowed to say that because they gave us things like Brown v. Board
AwesomeAwesome
Also, this is just profoundly incorrect, and yet still somehow a common misconception. See Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 690 n.4 (1980) (citing Dreyer v. Illinois, 1...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:16 a.m.
Genuinely I'm curious how they came to that conclusion
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:16 a.m.
What was the point of the guarantee clause then
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:16 a.m.
You can arm one branch of the government with all power, known and unknown—just do it at the state level!
impactiiiimpactiii
Genuinely I'm curious how they came to that conclusion
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 11:19 a.m.
Well, it’s been followed by every federal circuit, and the Supreme Court (to mention but one instance) reaffirmed it in 2010, in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702, 719 (2010) (opinion of Scalia, J., joined by Roberts, C.J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ.).
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:19 a.m.
Justice Jusitce Alito
impactiiiimpactiii
Justice Jusitce Alito
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 11:20 a.m.
Justices..
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:21 a.m.
The abbreviation “JJ.” following a list of justices' names stands for “Justice Justice"
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:21 a.m.
- Boston Law Review
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:21 a.m.
@impactiii Now you're just trolling.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:21 a.m.
@impactiii Get the fuck out of here.
AwesomeAwesome
Well, it’s been followed by every federal circuit, and the Supreme Court (to mention but one instance) reaffirmed it in 2010, in *Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dept...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:24 a.m.
James Madison, in Federalist No. 39, defined a republic as a government “which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding office during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.”

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Federalist No. 47

Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay hate all of those motherfuckers
impactiiiimpactiii
James Madison, in Federalist No. 39, defined a republic as a government “which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administere...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-12 11:25 a.m.
We aren’t going to see it revisited at any point in the foreseeable future.
AwesomeAwesome
We aren’t going to see it revisited at any point in the foreseeable future.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:53 a.m.
Can we appeal from the Mayflower District Court to the SCOTUS then
impactiiiimpactiii
@impactiii Get the fuck out of here.
Toby
Toby 2025-02-12 01:18 p.m.
Are you schizo?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 01:19 p.m.
@Awesome When will this case be wrapped up?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 03:40 p.m.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 04:03 p.m.
"Upon learning of the court’s decision to strike down the memorandum, my office took immediate steps to ensure compliance with the court’s order by notifying all relevant law enforcement agencies and directing them to cease any enforcement actions related to the memorandum." :💔: :😭:

https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1335741227651301501/1339167929740038176

@Awesome
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 04:03 p.m.
Is this perjury
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 04:04 p.m.
2 days and 11 hours
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 04:04 p.m.
Is this perjury? @Awesome Can we do a poll in court-announcements if this is perjury or not?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-12 04:05 p.m.
59 hours of immediate steps
impactiiiimpactiii
Is this perjury? @Awesome Can we do a poll in court-announcements if this is perjury or not?
Toby
Toby 2025-02-13 12:14 a.m.
Can you please act within court decorum please
TobyToby
Are you schizo?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:14 a.m.
Objection, medical privilege. Move to certify the question.
Toby
Toby 2025-02-13 12:15 a.m.
I was about to say something then I remembered I asked you to act within court decorum, so I can't say it
impactiiiimpactiii
Objection, medical privilege. Move to certify the question.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-13 12:17 a.m.
Alright, enough. You are to act with candour in these proceedings.
AwesomeAwesome
Alright, enough. You are to act with candour in these proceedings.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:17 a.m.
I'm a filing another motion
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:17 a.m.
I'm filing
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
I will have it in within the hour
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
Ok.. What motion, in particular?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
I feel like we should all be here when it happens
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
I feel like we all need to experience it
Toby
Toby 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
What does that even mean
impactiiiimpactiii
I feel like we all need to experience it
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
Ok…
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:43 a.m.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR OR REFER DEFENDANT SINGHSKI FOR PERJURY
CC: @Awesome @Toby @singhski
impactiiiimpactiii
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR OR REFER DEFENDANT SINGHSKI FOR PERJURY CC: @Awesome @Toby ...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-13 10:53 a.m.
I harbor doubts that it could even be perjury, as for it to be perjury, it would have to be him falsely swearing to something material.(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-13 10:55 a.m.
The stuff I’ve highlighted is what he was ordered to submit; anything outside of that is arguably immaterial, and thus cannot constitute perjury.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-13 11:11 a.m.
“A fact is ‘material’ if it has ‘a natural tendency to influence, or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.’” United States v. McLaughlin, 386 F.3d 547, 553 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995)).(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
“A fact is ‘material’ if it has ‘a natural tendency to influence, or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.’” *United State...(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:35 a.m.
Whether or not he took immediate steps was a disputed fact in this case
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:35 a.m.
You had to decide whether or not he did in the motion for contempt
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:36 a.m.
And I tried to get an evidentiary ruling on it
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:36 a.m.
But you already ruled that he did not take immediate steps
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:36 a.m.
And he said that as well
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:37 a.m.
But now we have conflicting facts
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:37 a.m.
Whether he took 59 hours or “immediate steps”
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:37 a.m.
Cannot be both ways
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:37 a.m.
And #3 was relevant to the TRO(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:38 a.m.
Where you asked him to notify all of his officers
impactiiiimpactiii
You had to decide whether or not he did in the motion for contempt
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-13 02:42 p.m.
But I already ruled on the motion, and.. denied it in that respect..
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-13 02:42 p.m.
So, like, how is it material?
AwesomeAwesome
So, like, how is it material?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:43 p.m.
Because it’s a fact of this case
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:43 p.m.
It’s literally a concrete fact that would have to be decided in this case had he not decided he would not contest
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-13 02:43 p.m.
But it’s not relevant to the inquiry, and is a fact that I’ve already ruled on — it’s not in dispute.(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:44 p.m.
Okay whatever
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:44 p.m.
Just put the ruling on the motion for summary judgment in the bag
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:44 p.m.
Bro
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:45 p.m.
We were going to rely on that fact at trial
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:45 p.m.
Whatever am I right
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:45 p.m.
Hahahaha
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:45 p.m.
Thank you
impactiiiimpactiii
Just put the ruling on the motion for summary judgment in the bag
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:45 p.m.
.
impactiiiimpactiii
.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-13 02:55 p.m.
I’m going to grant summary judgment since the facts are undisputed. I have yet to write my precise ruling, though.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-13 02:55 p.m.
so, like, again, there’s not going to be a trial.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:57 p.m.
Word
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-14 01:53 p.m.
I ask leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs seeing as this case is resolved. @Toby
impactiiiimpactiii
I ask leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs seeing as this case is resolved. @Toby
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-15 08:22 p.m.
Denied.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-15 08:23 p.m.
The case is not “resolved,” as I have yet to issue my ruling.
TobyToby used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-20 08:02 p.m.
Case Modified
@Toby has added @impactiii to the case channel.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-20 08:02 p.m.
@Awesome Ruling when?
impactiiiimpactiii
@Awesome Ruling when?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-20 08:05 p.m.
Likely sometime tomorrow or the day after.(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-22 10:52 a.m.
@Awesome Today?
impactiiiimpactiii
@Awesome Today?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-23 11:10 a.m.
Apologies, some IRL stuff came up so this will be delayed by 1-2 days (from now, that is).
Awesome
Awesome 2025-03-01 02:12 a.m.
@impactiii @singhski Just so y’all are in the loop, I’ve got a rather nasty ear infection (the IRL stuff was a medical appt), so this will likely be delayed by an additional few days.
AwesomeAwesome
@impactiii @singhski Just so y’all are in the loop, I’ve got a rather nasty ear infection (the IRL stuff was a medical appt), so this will likely be delayed ...
Singhski
Singhski 2025-03-01 01:07 p.m.
Get well soon
SinghskiSinghski
Get well soon
Awesome
Awesome 2025-03-01 01:09 p.m.
:🙏:
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-03-03 04:27 p.m.
@Awesome I have to withdraw as counsel as I am now a judge. Thank yuo
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome I have to withdraw as counsel as I am now a judge. Thank yuo
Awesome
Awesome 2025-03-05 08:01 p.m.
:👍:
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-03-15 02:07 a.m.
@Awesome @singhski @meowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-03-15 02:07 a.m.
Since we’re all judges we should rule on this together
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-03-15 02:07 a.m.
Agree to disagree
meowiittenmeowiitten
Agree to disagree
Awesome
Awesome 2025-03-16 12:48 p.m.
I'll get this done later. It's not my priority atm.
AwesomeAwesome
I'll get this done later. It's not my priority atm.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-03-24 08:32 p.m.
Today?
AwesomeAwesome
I'll get this done later. It's not my priority atm.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-03-25 06:21 p.m.
Today?
AwesomeAwesome
I'll get this done later. It's not my priority atm.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-03-26 06:13 p.m.
Today?
meowiittenmeowiitten
Today?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-03-26 06:53 p.m.
Can you stop? This is not a priority. Once I finish w/ <#1333672198132465745>, this will be.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-03-26 06:53 p.m.
I’ve been busy all week w/ Uni.
AwesomeAwesome
Can you stop? This is not a priority. Once I finish w/ <#1333672198132465745>, this will be.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-03-26 06:53 p.m.
Today?
meowiittenmeowiitten
Today?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-04-13 12:10 p.m.
Can you stop? Like right now.
SinghskiSinghski
Can you stop? Like right now.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-04-13 12:16 p.m.
What’s wrong with you?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-04-13 12:16 p.m.
Fucking fucking mother fucking stop.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-04-13 12:16 p.m.
This shit (ts).
meowiittenmeowiitten
Fucking fucking mother fucking stop.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-04-13 12:45 p.m.
What the frick? Do I need to report you to the International Frick Clique?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-04-13 12:45 p.m.
Trust me I friggin shitting will.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-05-18 12:02 a.m.
The opinion for this case is going to be out soon-ish. Apologies for the delay; this hasn’t been the priority.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-05-26 10:22 a.m.
@Awesome Your Honor, how long will this take?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-05-26 10:23 a.m.
The Department of Justice has patiently been waiting for you to render a final order.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-05-26 10:23 a.m.
So is Rochonto, in whatever blacksite they are keeping him in
SinghskiSinghski
So is Rochonto, in whatever blacksite they are keeping him in
Awesome
Awesome 2025-05-26 12:40 p.m.
Apologies for the delay, this should be done by this week (or early next week at the latest).
AwesomeAwesome
Apologies for the delay, this should be done by this week (or early next week at the latest).
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-05-28 04:00 p.m.
SIR.
meowiittenmeowiitten
SIR.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-05-28 04:08 p.m.
The week hasn’t even ended?
😭1
Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ
Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-06-11 08:22 p.m.
2 weeks has passed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 06:56 p.m.
@Awesome Please.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-06-17 06:57 p.m.
@Awesome Please zir.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-06-17 06:57 p.m.
@Awesome I think I pinged the wrong account
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome Please.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-06-17 06:57 p.m.
You pinged the wrong account
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 06:57 p.m.
@Zamenoff651
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Zamenoff651
Singhski
Singhski 2025-06-17 06:58 p.m.
Did you mean to ping @Awesome ?
😭1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 06:59 p.m.
No
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 06:59 p.m.
Wrong account
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:41 p.m.
@Awesome SIR!
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-21 09:34 p.m.
@AwesomePIays Please. Sir.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-21 09:34 p.m.
@singhski
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-21 09:35 p.m.
Cross motion for summary judg Plz
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-21 09:35 p.m.
Motion for leave to file late brief
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:30 p.m.
@singhski
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:30 p.m.
Who is et al again
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:30 p.m.
Let me read the complaint again.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:30 p.m.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HOLD
DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT AND TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-30 08:00 p.m.
@Awesome Sir
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome Sir
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-30 08:16 p.m.
And this will be out by Monday, EST.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-13 03:28 a.m.
@Awesome Sir
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome Sir
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-13 03:28 a.m.
Yea, that other opinion took longer than I thought it would, so the deadlines for everything have been shifted forward a couple of days.
AwesomeAwesome
Yea, that other opinion took longer than I thought it would, so the deadlines for everything have been shifted forward a couple of days.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-13 03:29 a.m.
Alright well
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-13 03:29 a.m.
Notice of supplemental authority
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-13 03:29 a.m.
<#1383481224835891312>
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-13 03:29 a.m.
<#1387959817687269537>
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-17 08:08 p.m.
@Awesome SIR!
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-19 04:46 p.m.
@Awesome SIR
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 01:57 a.m.
@singhski ...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:50 p.m.
@Awesome SIR
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:50 p.m.
@Awesome SIR
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-07-23 04:56 p.m.
I would reassign this but it seems too far in
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-24 06:35 a.m.
shah_khaled ᴘᴄshah_khaled ᴘᴄ
I would reassign this but it seems too far in
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-24 06:35 a.m.
apologies, this has been set back by a myriad of delays & the fact that it was backlogged for ages (as a result of those delays)
✅1
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-27 09:40 a.m.
Ok, as a very quick (albeit belated update), I had an assignment which I had to wrap up tonight, so it’ll be done tomorrow morning/afternoon, which will coincide with me replacing my faulty HDMI cord. :🙏:
Singhski
Singhski 2025-07-29 07:45 a.m.
Hello guys, I'm so sorry. New update, I was planning to finish the assignment but my irritable bowel syndrome decided to act up all over my faulty HDMI cord and now it isn't working at all. :🫤: So I’ll have to push it to tomorrow morning or afternoon.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-29 12:05 p.m.
@Awesome
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-11 05:02 p.m.
@Awesome SIR
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome SIR
Singhski
Singhski 2025-08-12 06:30 p.m.
Sorry about that, I swallowed my HDMI cord during a meltdown. It'll be done tomorrow morning/afternoon.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-13 10:24 a.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Judge Nicklaus_s.
NicklausNicklaus used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-13 12:18 p.m.
Case Modified
@Nicklaus has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
NicklausNicklaus used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-13 12:18 p.m.
Case Modified
@Nicklaus has added @dero to the case channel.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-13 01:33 p.m.
Fuck this case
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-13 03:11 p.m.
@meowiitten @singhski @dero I am recusing because I served as Solicitor General of the State of Mayflower or otherwise served in the Department of Justice during the pendency of this case and gave advice to Attorney General Singhski about this case.
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-13 03:11 p.m.
@krm
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-13 05:30 p.m.
@Prothonotary's Office reassign
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-08-13 05:32 p.m.
Reasisgned to @singhski
shah_khaled ᴘᴄshah_khaled ᴘᴄ
Reasisgned to @singhski
Singhski
Singhski 2025-08-13 05:32 p.m.
LOL?
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-08-13 05:33 p.m.
deal with it.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-08-13 05:33 p.m.
I am recusing because I am a party to this case.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-08-13 05:33 p.m.
also because my hdmi cable broke
SinghskiSinghski
I am recusing because I am a party to this case.
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-13 07:32 p.m.
actually ur not anymore bahahahahah
NicklausNicklaus used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-16 09:13 p.m.
Case Modified
@Nicklaus has added @Toby to the case channel.
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-21 11:38 p.m.
@Xerxy filed in February btw
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-21 11:38 p.m.
reassign
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:56 p.m.
@Prothonotary's Office
Xerxy
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:56 p.m.
Ok
Xerxy
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:56 p.m.
reassigned to judge @meowiitten
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:56 p.m.
No
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:56 p.m.
He’s a party
Xerxy
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
Oh
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
Nick
Singhski
Sado

are parties
Xerxy
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
reassigned to judge @who
NicklausNicklaus
Nick Singhski Sado are parties
Xerxy
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
Can you move the channel to his category
Xerxy
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
I’m not on pc rn
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
Yes
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Judge GrandpaGobies.
NicklausNicklaus used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-23 08:58 p.m.
Case Modified
@Nicklaus has added @dero to the case channel.
NicklausNicklaus used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-23 08:58 p.m.
Case Modified
@Nicklaus has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:58 p.m.
@who
who
who 2025-08-23 09:15 p.m.
Explain to me how this case is 6 months old and not done yet
who
who 2025-08-23 09:15 p.m.
@dero @meowiitten (idk if you’re apart of this)
whowho
@dero @meowiitten (idk if you’re apart of this)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:15 p.m.
Not anymore
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:15 p.m.
So basically
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:16 p.m.
He said he granted summary judgment in our favor but he never did an opinion
who
who 2025-08-23 09:16 p.m.
Ok link me the motion for summary judgement he accepted and the other party’s response
who
who 2025-08-23 09:16 p.m.
I will rule @meowiitten
impactiiiimpactiii
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT @Awesome @singhski [Exhibit 1](<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GEVreUmJFnoXslR0y9UiKMjMeJoDRdA3/view?usp...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:17 p.m.
.
AwesomeAwesome
I’m going to grant summary judgment since the facts are undisputed. I have yet to write my precise ruling, though.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:17 p.m.
.
who
who 2025-08-23 09:18 p.m.
So the case is about a law that lets the AG declare a criminal organization and order arrests without warrant ?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:18 p.m.
Uhhh something like that?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:19 p.m.
Idk you need to go read the complaint
who
who 2025-08-23 09:19 p.m.
Ok
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-03 12:22 a.m.
@rochonto3 @singhski Can we make a settlement agreement :/
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-03 12:22 a.m.
:/
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-03 12:22 a.m.
:/
Brenda
Brenda 2025-09-20 08:06 p.m.
@meowiitten @singhski

It is ORDERED that each party has twenty-four (24) hours of the entry of this Order to file any motion to recuse or substitute the Court for cause, or to indicate that they do not intend to file any such motion. This case will be stayed until then. Signed by District Judge Brenda Popplewell (Entered: 09/21/2025).
(edited)
BrendaBrenda used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-20 08:08 p.m.
Case Modified
@Brenda has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
Brenda
Brenda 2025-09-20 08:08 p.m.
@meowiitten Given that you're now... suing your own office, will you be appointing Special Counsel or handling the matter in propria persona.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-20 08:08 p.m.
Moot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-20 08:08 p.m.
That or frankly I mean I don't care about this case
Brenda
Brenda 2025-09-20 08:11 p.m.
@Prothonotary's Office

It is ORDERED that this case is dismisssed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case file. Signed by District Judge Popplewell (Entered: 09/21/2025).
(edited)
krabzkrabz used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-10-04 04:03 p.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-10-04 04:03 p.m.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-10-04 04:03 p.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Volume XII.
Exported 442 messages